Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Society & CultureReligion & Spirituality · 9 years ago

Why do protestants hate Catholicism, yet use the Bible that the Catholic church compiled?

I keep getting some really weird excuses from protestants on this. from "Well the Catholic church use to be the true church but lost its way" to "well our church was underground and the Catholic church just got lucky and compiled the exact same books as we did"

28 Answers

Relevance
  • Nous
    Lv 7
    9 years ago
    Best answer

    The Roman Emperor Constantine produced the bible and he was a pagan not god! He took the Jewish religion and basing it on the Mithras religion, organized it into Christianity and then into the Holly Roman Catholic Church!! Not in Israel or any of the countries of supposed origin but entirely ITALIAN!

    Not one word of it is contemporary with the period and was not written until several hundred years after the period the story is set in!! How did the apostles write their books more than a hundred years after they would have been dead?

    Then attitudes like yours caused Christianity to split into over 38,000 different denominations, sects and cults setting christian against christian and christians against everyone else!

    God's work? Hardly!

    It must be the Devil and the Antichrist working together to divide, conquer and destroy christianity from the inside!

    Which one are you working for?

  • 9 years ago

    Protestantism began in the 16th century.

    Most of the movements were intended to overcome the political and worldly power of the Church, with its insistence that its dogma (the teachings it promulgated) was too restrictive, and that too much was going into the Church and not coming out into the society at the time.

    So, (forgetting about the eastern schism) there was a reaction against the Pope as the titular head of all Christians. Especially when the Church had gone through a time with two popes, and many popes (and other authorities in the Church) were selling "indulgences" to forgive sin and to pave the way to Heaven for those who were rich.

    Remember that many European monarchs owed their thrones to the Church at the time, and were looking for ways to get the Church off their backs so they could wield political power in their own right. The whole system was extremely corrupt, despite some of the priests (including up to the Pope himself) being properly devout. And so the Church (and its "princes") was getting richer and richer (that is controlled the real wealth - the land) while the monarchs themselves were getting poorer and poorer.

    Eventually, there was a reaction against the Church, and there were many splits, particularly the Lutherans and the Calvinists, who "protested" against the main powers. Previous protests had been put down harshly, with things like the Inquisition, and the burning (and other tortures) of heretics. But in the 16th century, the number of protesters suddenly reach some kind of critical mass, and that resulted in literally hundreds of sects splitting from the main body of the Church.

    So, from a single Church, we had literally hundreds of them, some very local.

    Naturally, the protestants were persecuted and hunted as was the usual wont at the time. And there would be "informers" who would lead the authorities, sanctioned by the Church, to capture and enforce the Church dogmas. So, "papists" (those who stuck with the main Church) could not be trusted. (Aside: Think of the U.S. in the late forties and the fifties and their pogroms against communists - same kind of thing: you were either a communist and hence against everything American, or you were an American, against everything that smacked of communism.)

    So, Protestant countries started to politically cut out the Church - the Roman Catholics - from everything dealing with politics. It didn't take long for the mistrust of those who professed "the true faith" to become hatred of anything that had to do with catholicism.

    Much is made about the King James Version of the Bible and how it is more protestant than the version used by the Catholics - it's a phony argument: most of the people who did the translation for the KJV WERE "papists", and they used the same sources as earlier translations did, which were approved by the Council of Nicea (sometime in the fifth century A.D.)

    So, an capsule version of history...

  • 9 years ago

    Every human religious institution is flawed, but I've often wondered why the Prods hate us so much, both as individuals, and as Catholics as a whole, yet as Catholics, we only care about the differences between our churches as an abstract- a wholly benign view.

    If you change the dynamic, though, the same thing happens in reverse. The Catholic church in south America makes life hard for converts to Protestantism- Protestants in South America face the same discrimination that we face in the US. Shame on all of us.

    Also, if we're being honest, the mother church of the first Millenium was a hybrid of the Eastern orthodox and Roman churches- a slightly different animal from Catholicism today, and, perhaps, better for the unity.

  • elts
    Lv 4
    9 years ago

    The Bible was canonized (including the entire New and Old Testament canon, including the Deuterocanonicals (also known as Apocrypha)) at the Synod of Hippo, 393AD.

    The books had existed and were of course used prior to the Synod, but no official canon existed. It was at this Synod that the Bible came into existence. NO Bible existed before this year!

    There were previous councils that proposed Biblical canons, but they were all slightly different. Therefore, until the Synod of Hippo, when the Bible was officially canonized, no officially accepted "canon" really existed. So the argument that there was already a canon before Catholicism existed is misleading for two reasons. A) Catholicism existed since 33AD, B) Proposals for a canon were varied.

    No one can deny that the Catholic Church was responsible for the canonization of the Bible. Many Protestants claim that the Catholic Church was born under Constantine -- a claim that is false, and if true, would invalidate the Bible altogether, as Constantine had lived 60 years before the Synod of Hippo.

    If the Catholic Church was indeed a product of Roman paganism under the hand of Constantine, the Biblical canon (60 years later) would be the product of a corrupted, pagan Church.

    And on the topic of Bible corruption, who was it that took out the Deuterocanonical books? The books of the original Septuaguint, which Jesus HIMSELF quoted from?

    Examples of quotes from the Deuterocanonicals

    Matt. 6:19-20 - Jesus' statement about laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven follows Sirach 29:11 - lay up your treasure.

    Matt. 7:16,20 - Jesus' statement "you will know them by their fruits" follows Sirach 27:6 - the fruit discloses the cultivation.

    Mark 4:5,16-17 - Jesus' description of seeds falling on rocky ground and having no root follows Sirach 40:15.

    Matt. 24:15 - the "desolating sacrilege" Jesus refers to is also taken from 1 Macc. 1:54 and 2 Macc. 8:17.

    Matt. 24:16 - let those "flee to the mountains" is taken from 1 Macc. 2:28.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 9 years ago

    There has been some shuffling of books over the ages, and some folks use the coptic or catholic, and some have more or less the same content and some have extra, or are missing some.

    Maccabee's, anyone? Enoch?

    but the King James Version that most everyone uses?

    Its just that common. Really hard to find a version that isn't KJV or a more modern rendering of KJV.

    Really, its just all they have to work with, and if there are other options, they are likely just scared to change things when they don't need to.

    KJV uses a pretty language. It's full of errors and modifications and omissions, but when you think of passages from the bible, the language of the KJV makes it quite theatrical and dramatic.

    which really works, in a church setting.

    Catholicism goes a step farther, though. Not only dictating what version of the bible, but how every detail of it is to be interpreted.

    Thats my primary beef with the Catholic church. It assumes the authority of god over men.

    Which is just not tolerable in my house, where the only authority besides me is god himself.

    (and my wife. and sometimes the dogs.)

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Protestant is what the Catholics call Christians who do not follow the Pope and the Vatican. You can divide can conquer and specify a specific non Catholic Christian church instead of just lumping all Protestants into one grouping. What does a Baptist have in common with a Unitarian? What does a Lutheran have in common with a Methodist? What does a Congregationalist have in common with a Presbetarian? What does a Jehovah's Witness have in common with a Seventh Day Adventist? By labeling them all Protestants, you cast a fairly wide net and get a rather diverse set of fish.

    You really need to get down to brass tacks and specify what you are questioning. Would it be the 95 Theses that Martin Luther nailed to the Vatican wall?

  • 9 years ago

    The bible is similar, protestant faiths removed the Apocrypha from the bible, these are basically consider historical writings but not inspired by God, When the church compiled the bible in the 4th century they were maybe not so corrupt, it was not until the time of Martin Luther 16th century that the Catholic church really went south and were not really teaching the word of God only using the power of the church against the people. This is why we had the Protestant Reformation.

  • Anonymous
    9 years ago

    Here it is-most don't. The St.joseph Edition of the Catholic Bible includes books the Protestants exclude and for that matter Catholics even order the Ten commandments differently

    Source(s): I ama nonprotestant, nonCathollc Christian
  • 9 years ago

    for the same reason teens hate their parents

    the protestants originally wanted to reform the catholic dogma

    but the catholic church rejected them

    so the lutherns made their own church

    then others got involved and you get calvinist, the quakers, the baptist, the church of england....

  • 9 years ago

    They didn't. They got theirs from the Orthodox Church, specifically a 13th century version of the Septuagint. The Catholics were using the Vulgate. Then both found something better.

    If you mean the books of the Bible, you're wrong. Luther dumped the 7 odd books of the Apocrypha because they contradicted one of his new doctrines. (And he really, really, really wanted to dump James and Hebrews, but couldn't find an excuse.)

  • Ricky
    Lv 6
    9 years ago

    The word 'Catholic' means 'Whole', 'Complete, and 'Universal' and use to stand for the Whole Complete Universal Church or Bride of Christ, not just for the Roman Church, later they stole this word from all the Churches propagating themselves as the only true Catholic Church, this was not it's original meaning.

    We use the Bible of the Christians not the Bible of Rome, but of the Whole Complete Universal Church. The first one to compile the Bible was Eusebius of Caesarea of the East not the Church of Rome in the West. The Earliest usage of the word Catholic was by Ignatius of Antioch a Bishop of the East not West. Even the word 'Pope' was first used for Bishop Heraclas of Alexandria in the East not West.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.